<span>This is an example of Social Learning Theory. <span>This theory indicates that we learn by observing the behaviors in our environment and the behavior that is reinforced or rewarded.
I hope my answer can help you.
</span></span>
Answer:
consumers have greater access to information
That is untrue. An illustration of observational learning might be this.
A baby develops the ability to express and comprehend facial expressions. A kid picks up how to chew. The younger youngster stops taking cookies without permission after seeing an older sibling get in trouble for taking one without asking. A kid picks up how to walk. Early studies by Thorndike and Watson were unable to demonstrate that animals truly picked up skills through observation. Animals can learn by observation, but Warden and his colleagues weren't able to demonstrate this until the 1930s. Consider how a child might see adults waving at one another before subsequently copying the gesture. Through this process, a ton of learning takes place. This is known as observational learning in psychology.
To learn more on the observational learning:
brainly.com/question/15937305
#SPJ4
<span>The verbal message will likely take a backseat to the gestures and non-verbal cues. Higher-context communicators typically work with gestures moreso than the actual content that they're trying to communicate, while the opposite is usually true for those with a lower context style.</span>
CORRECT ANSWER:
there is no
so is the consequent
a whole may
does not constitute
there is no
STEP-BY-STEP EXPLANATION:
To have an argument, you must have a factual claim and an inferential claim. This means that at least one statement in an argument must claim to present evidence, and there must be a claim that this evidence implies something. In a conditional statement, <em><u>there is no</u></em> assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true, then <u><em>is the consequent .</em></u>Of course, a conditional statement as <u><em>a whole way present</em></u> evidence because it asserts a relationship between statements. Yet when conditional statements are taken in this sense, a single conditional statement <u><em>does not constitute</em></u> an argument because <u><em>there is no</em></u> separate claim that this evidence implies anything.